STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

153,455,236/–, the learned DRP following the direction of dispute resolution panel in earlier years confirm the disallowance. v. With respect to the adjustment to the book profit under section 115JB of the act of the same amount disallowed ITA NO. 1004/MUM/2021 AY 16-17 Strides Pharma Science Ltd. under section 14 A of the act, the learned dispute

ECL FINANCE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

section 153(4) i.e. 9 months in 2014 + 12 months in 2015 + 12 months of 20 16] 10 29/9/2017 DRP passed direction u/s 144C(5) of the Act 11 30/9/2017 Time limit for passing order u/s 144C(5) of the Act [i.e. nine months from the end of the month in which draft order is forwarded to assessee

ATOS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

5. Disallowance for provision for project 17,16,22,641 risk 6. Disallowance under section 40(a) on 16,65,932 account of non-deduction of TDS on software purchase 7. Disallowance under section 40(a) due 64,45,907 to non-deduction of TDS of Foreign Parties 4 I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. 8. Denial of claim

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

153 of the Act , the AO can assess or reassess such income. The A.O. clearly had reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and the same can be reopened under the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that in the instant case since the assessment has been reopened within four years from

TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ASSTT/ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT DENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

153 of the Act would also be barred by limitation. For the sake of convenience, the original ground No.2 raised by the assessee is reproduced hereunder:- “2. Re: Validity of the Order: 2.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned transfer pricing order under section 92CA(3) dated 1 November 2019 is barred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

5,94,89,560/- while disallowing Rs. 6,36,64,216/-. iii. Disallowance under section 14A The assessee made suo motu disallowance under section 14A amounting to Rs. 10,73,211/- towards expenditure relatable to exempt income. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the computation and applied Rule 8D. The disallowance was computed

ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted as no exempt income was earned. The issue of interest on fixed deposits was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 143(3)", "Section 80IAB", "Section 14A", "Rule 8D", "Section 153(3)", "Section 153(5

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

5,94,89,560/- while\ndisallowing Rs. 6,36,64,216/-.\niii. Disallowance under section 14A\nThe assessee made suo motu disallowance under section 14A\namounting to Rs. 10,73,211/- towards expenditure relatable to\exempt income. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the\ncomputation and applied Rule 8D. The disallowance was\ncomputed

ACIT, (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

5 Ground No: 1-4 to 22: Provision of Technical Services by the Appellant through the Bangalore unit 6 Ground No. 23 to 26: Provision of Advisory Services 7. Ground No. 27 to 32: Payments towards Cost Allocations CORPORATE TAX GROUNDS: 8 Ground No. 33 to 35: Disallowance of Amortized Lease Rentals 9 Ground No. 36 to 38: Alternate disallowance

SHELL INDIA MARKETS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (LTU) - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

5 Ground No: 1-4 to 22: Provision of Technical Services by the Appellant through the Bangalore unit 6 Ground No. 23 to 26: Provision of Advisory Services 7. Ground No. 27 to 32: Payments towards Cost Allocations CORPORATE TAX GROUNDS: 8 Ground No. 33 to 35: Disallowance of Amortized Lease Rentals 9 Ground No. 36 to 38: Alternate disallowance

JCIT CENT. CIR. - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Grasim Industries Limited, The Dcit Cc-1(4), Corporate Finance Division, Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Old Vs. A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400030. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jcit (Osd), Central Circle- Grasim Industries Limited, 1(4), A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Room No. 902, Pratishtha Vs. Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Marg, Worli, Building Annexe, Mumbai-400030. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 4464 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar & Mr. Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024

5. The Ld. CIT(A) though up The Ld. CIT(A) though upheld the validity of the notice issued held the validity of the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act however, held that under the proceedings of u/s 153C of the Act however, held that under the proceedings of u/s 153C of the Act however, held that under

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR. 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance of INR 4,22,19,634/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as well as deletion/reduction of the transfer pricing adjustment in appeal before the Tribunal. Since the Appellant was not satisfied by the relief granted by the DRP, the Assessee has also preferred appeal before the Tribunal challenging the Final Assessment Order, dated

DCIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance of INR 4,22,19,634/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as well as deletion/reduction of the transfer pricing adjustment in appeal before the Tribunal. Since the Appellant was not satisfied by the relief granted by the DRP, the Assessee has also preferred appeal before the Tribunal challenging the Final Assessment Order, dated

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(3),

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

disallowance made u/s. 14A. 13. Levy of the interest u/s. 234B of the Act. 14. Levy of the interest u/s. 234D of the Act. 15. Credit for TDS considered short by Rs. 45,06,609/- 16. Credit for tax paid on self-assessment not granted. 3. The assessee vide letter dated 9th June 2022 has raised additional grounds that

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

5) of the Act. In conformity with the directions issued by the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order on 29.01.2014 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act making transfer pricing adjustment of INR 42,25,22,481/- as against transfer pricing adjustment of INR 106,67,93,791/- proposed in Draft Assessment Order

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

5) of the Act. In conformity with the directions issued by the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order on 29.01.2014 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act making transfer pricing adjustment of INR 42,25,22,481/- as against transfer pricing adjustment of INR 106,67,93,791/- proposed in Draft Assessment Order

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

5-10-1993 of the CBDT has clarified the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd. (supra). CBDT has clarified that where the banks are holding securities as stock-in-trade and not as investments, principles of law enunciated in Vijaya Bank Ltd. (supra) would not be applicable. Therefore, CBDT has clarified that assessing officer should determine

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GAMMON INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 2,78,87,591/-, being 100% of the expenditure on account of Sub-Contract Expenses to M/s Sun Construction Co., Rs. 1,12,02,660/-, being 33.33% of expenditure on account of purchases from M/s. Naveen Traders, Rs. 94,21,136/-, being 33.33% of expenditure on account of purchases from M/s. Narayan Suppliers

GAMMON INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC- 7(2)., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 2,78,87,591/-, being 100% of the expenditure on account of Sub-Contract Expenses to M/s Sun Construction Co., Rs. 1,12,02,660/-, being 33.33% of expenditure on account of purchases from M/s. Naveen Traders, Rs. 94,21,136/-, being 33.33% of expenditure on account of purchases from M/s. Narayan Suppliers